[SilasX]

>Point #1 is bogus: if you're already doing a venous draw then why do another separate test as well? That's just good sense.

Note what followed in point 2 (and what I should have added on 1 but for being too repetitive): when you do ask for just that test, suddenly it's not available!

>Unfortunately the piece does not include a detail that it would have been really useful to know, which is what happens if you walk in and order the one test that can be conducted with a finger prick - would they use their test or not? The difficulty ordering the test that occurred when she asked could have been affected by the fact that she had told him she was a reporter,

I think it's just as important to reveal that bit: that whether they use the top-secret tech might depend on whether you're a skeptic or otherwise not a sympathetic party.

>Plus the reporter almost certainly got Theranos' hackles up by communicating with them and receiving an invitation to have a test done, and then going behind their back to do it anonymously at another center. I won't say that it's unethical for him to have done that, but it's definitely an aggressive action or will seem so to Theranos.

In my book, "a company that is upset that you tested a sample offered to the general public rather than one they cherry-picked for you" is a shady company.

[Pyxl101]

In asking for that specific test, she disclosed that she was a reporter conducting a surprise investigation into the company. That would reasonably freak out a company in Theranos' position, especially low level employees who might have heard they should be careful about reporters but don't know exactly what to do. It's hard to draw conclusions from the story. We'd have learned more if she had asked for that one test alone for which they use finger prick.